> den Otter writes:
> > Hmm, even if it [the surveillance] is private and distributed?
> > Surely that could count as an expression of spontaneous
> > order?
> Even if you own an incorruptible camcorder, someone might still come
> and lock you up/torture you until you yield the secret. Distributing
> parts of the secret among several people just makes it tougher, not
Huh? My proposal isn't about keeping secrets; it's about keeping an eye on your property and increasing public safety.
> I think ubiquitous surveillance is a remarkably bad idea. Once the
> infrastructure's in place, the potential for misuse is gigantic.
I agree (regarding truly ubiquitous surveillance), but since we can't hold back the tide of progress, we'd better go with the flow.